If you don’t think character counts, I don’t think you will think culture counts. It’s obvious to me that it (character) does… . Do what you say you’re going to do, be where you say you’ll be, and so on.

(03-30-2022, 09:49 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: Well I’ll take McVay’s opinion over yours. He said it was the key.

Did he explain why the hell he decided to wait 6 years to develop this "culture" if it was the key to winning a Super Bowl.
  
Teammates get along better when they are winning.  Everyone feels better about themselves and the team when they are winning.  The winning comes first.  Obviously the "culture" on a winning team is going to be better.

(03-31-2022, 02:33 AM)SladeX Wrote: If you don’t think character counts, I don’t think you will think culture counts. It’s obvious to me that it (character) does… . Do what you say you’re going to do, be where you say you’ll be, and so on.

The two winningest teams over the last two decades (NE, PITT) are notorious for low character players.

(03-29-2022, 03:41 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: https://www.bengals.com/news/quick-hits-bengals-hope-to-copy-rams-super-rebound-postseason-ot-revamped

didnt it take them 3 years (ie time ZT has been coach here)

(03-30-2022, 02:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is there is no proof that his "culture" made any difference.

When we just had his "culture" we sucked.

It is obvious we won because we increased our talent level.

If Burrow and a bunch of other top players miss time with injury and we still go to the Super Bowl then I will give Zac's "culture" more credit.  Until then I don't really see any proof of it helping us win. 

Major roster overhaul too. His culture isn't going to turn average Joe's into winners 

Need both. 

(03-31-2022, 10:56 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: didnt it take them 3 years (ie time ZT has been coach here)

To have a winning team it takes as we all know lots of ingredients. I’m going to just center on 2. The Jets added C J Uzomah and maybe their culture will be much better. But you have to have the talent as well. The Rams got Matthew Stafford and Von Miller. FredToast and others who can’t see the forest for the trees.

The Bengals when Taylor took over didn’t have a roster worth a flip. The scouting and personnel department had been in place for years. How’d they done? How did they do drafting? Taylor did bring his experience from Miami and McVay as well as his own. He directed Duke and his staff to bring him college players who were from winning programs. He wanted team captains. He also wanted free agents that were likewise. Those players were evident. Hilton and Hendrickson were hard workers and great teammates. Logan Wilson was an unbelievable leader at Wyoming.

He got rid of the players on the roster who didn’t buy in. If people can’t see the metamorphosis of the winning mindset that Taylor developed then they truly can’t see the forest for the trees. No you can’t do what he did without it producing results. But if you can’t see the make over of this teams culture then you are just biased or stubborn. But to get a team that had lost so many games and a franchise with a history of losing to turn it around like he did is pretty amazing. Like I said I know a NFL HC and OC and that’s what amazes them.

Those thinking that improving the roster is all it takes are lost. This team’s roster was not as elite as most Super Bowl teams and even with the recent OL FA overhaul Vegas seems to agree. Taylor had a great season. Plain and simple.

(03-31-2022, 12:00 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: To have a winning team it takes as we all know lots of ingredients. I’m going to just center on 2. The Jets added C J Uzomah and maybe their culture will be much better. But you have to have the talent as well. The Rams got Matthew Stafford and Von Miller. FredToast and others who can’t see the forest for the trees.

The Bengals when Taylor took over didn’t have a roster worth a flip. The scouting and personnel department had been in place for years. How’d they done? How did they do drafting? Taylor did bring his experience from Miami and McVay as well as his own. He directed Duke and his staff to bring him college players who were from winning programs. He wanted team captains. He also wanted free agents that were likewise. Those players were evident. Hilton and Hendrickson were hard workers and great teammates. Logan Wilson was an unbelievable leader at Wyoming.

He got rid of the players on the roster who didn’t buy in. If people can’t see the metamorphosis of the winning mindset that Taylor developed then they truly can’t see the forest for the trees. No you can’t do what he did without it producing results. But if you can’t see the make over of this teams culture then you are just biased or stubborn. But to get a team that had lost so many games and a franchise with a history of losing to turn it around like he did is pretty amazing. Like I said I know a NFL HC and OC and that’s what amazes them.

Those thinking that improving the roster is all it takes are lost. This team’s roster was not as elite as most Super Bowl teams and even with the recent OL FA overhaul Vegas seems to agree. Taylor had a great season. Plain and simple.

I just think there's miscommunication between the two arguing sides here. Improving the roster is undoubtedly the biggest contribution, which I think is the main point Fred is making. This isn't debatable, to be honest - the team brought in better players, so the team was better. However, ZT did a great job of bringing in high-quality guys. This likely improved team chemistry, morale and all of that fun stuff. 

Being a "leader" doesn't win games if the player isn't good, though. That's the whole point. The college football landscape is littered with high quality teammates who are strong leaders. A lot of them aren't very good, though. Burrow is a great leader, but he is also a fantastic QB. Hilton is a great lockerroom guy, but he is also a good corner. Hendrickson is a great teammate, but he is also a fantastic DE. The same goes for Logan Wilson, and a lot of other players on the team. Good players win games. The lockerroom stuff helps in an unknown capacity, but the biggest change was that Cincinnati became inundated with quality players (aside from OL). 

I don't think Cincinnati's roster is really that much worse than any of the other past Super Bowl teams. There have been better, sure, but the Bengals have a strong roster. Especially going into this season. They had some luck throughout the season, were fortunate with an easier schedule and got hot at the right time. 

(03-31-2022, 12:36 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I just think there's miscommunication between the two arguing sides here. Improving the roster is undoubtedly the biggest contribution, which I think is the main point Fred is making. This isn't debatable, to be honest - the team brought in better players, so the team was better. However, ZT did a great job of bringing in high-quality guys. This likely improved team chemistry, morale and all of that fun stuff. 

Being a "leader" doesn't win games if the player isn't good, though. That's the whole point. The college football landscape is littered with high quality teammates who are strong leaders. A lot of them aren't very good, though. Burrow is a great leader, but he is also a fantastic QB. Hilton is a great lockerroom guy, but he is also a good corner. Hendrickson is a great teammate, but he is also a fantastic DE. The same goes for Logan Wilson, and a lot of other players on the team. Good players win games. The lockerroom stuff helps in an unknown capacity, but the biggest change was that Cincinnati became inundated with quality players (aside from OL). 

I don't think Cincinnati's roster is really that much worse than any of the other past Super Bowl teams. There have been better, sure, but the Bengals have a strong roster. Especially going into this season. They had some luck throughout the season, were fortunate with an easier schedule and got hot at the right time. 

There’s no doubt that as I pointed out adding C J Uzomah isn’t going to resurrect the Jets. But the roster improved after Zac arrived. Coincidence? I don’t think so. He’s the one who adamantly wanted Chase. Duke Tobin was running things when Zac took over. Okay everybody seems to think he’s excellent. Well I do know Zac respects him. I think Zac has helped him look at adding different types of players. He convinced him to look at their mannerisms with their teammates. Look at their leadership more. So I’m a believer he’s impacted the roster. The culture well I don’t know if there’s room to chronicle all the comments by players validating that.

But I don’t know where the percentages reside on responsibility for the turnaround as far as talent and culture. We know it’s both and you need both. But a losing teams mindset is not something that is like a light switch just because your talent is better it goes away. This team had confidence that continued to flourish after the bye week and never really stopped.

(03-30-2022, 02:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is there is no proof that his "culture" made any difference.

When we just had his "culture" we sucked.

It is obvious we won because we increased our talent level.

If Burrow and a bunch of other top players miss time with injury and we still go to the Super Bowl then I will give Zac's "culture" more credit.  Until then I don't really see any proof of it helping us win. 

We just sucked because we had to purge the old culture first.  

This culture thing was a big part of McVay's success if you remember all of the hoopla surrounding the Rams a few years ago, and what his players said about him. Zac saw it, and has tried to emulate it here. 

(03-31-2022, 12:36 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I just think there's miscommunication between the two arguing sides here. Improving the roster is undoubtedly the biggest contribution, which I think is the main point Fred is making. This isn't debatable, to be honest - the team brought in better players, so the team was better. However, ZT did a great job of bringing in high-quality guys. This likely improved team chemistry, morale and all of that fun stuff. 

Being a "leader" doesn't win games if the player isn't good, though. That's the whole point. The college football landscape is littered with high quality teammates who are strong leaders. A lot of them aren't very good, though. Burrow is a great leader, but he is also a fantastic QB. Hilton is a great lockerroom guy, but he is also a good corner. Hendrickson is a great teammate, but he is also a fantastic DE. The same goes for Logan Wilson, and a lot of other players on the team. Good players win games. The lockerroom stuff helps in an unknown capacity, but the biggest change was that Cincinnati became inundated with quality players (aside from OL). 

I don't think Cincinnati's roster is really that much worse than any of the other past Super Bowl teams. There have been better, sure, but the Bengals have a strong roster. Especially going into this season. They had some luck throughout the season, were fortunate with an easier schedule and got hot at the right time. 

On the flip side, we've seen teams load up on talent, and not do squat. You really need a little of both. Now that we know how toxic it is behind the scenes in Washington, it may shed light on why their fantasy FA hauls didn't yield anything....or Philly's "dream team".

(03-31-2022, 12:00 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: Like I said I know a NFL HC and OC and that’s what amazes them.

Who?

(03-31-2022, 02:07 PM)Wyche Wrote: This culture thing was a big part of McVay's success if you remember all of the hoopla surrounding the Rams a few years ago, and what his players said about him. Zac saw it, and has tried to emulate it here. 

Yeah, and I saw his Rams go 9-7 and miss the playoffs the year after the Super Bowl.

Same exact "culture" but missing Suh, Marcus Peters, Roger Saffold, Aqib Talib, and John Sullivan.

(03-31-2022, 01:58 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: There’s no doubt that as I pointed out adding C J Uzomah isn’t going to resurrect the Jets. But the roster improved after Zac arrived. Coincidence? I don’t think so. He’s the one who adamantly wanted Chase. Duke Tobin was running things when Zac took over. Okay everybody seems to think he’s excellent. Well I do know Zac respects him. I think Zac has helped him look at adding different types of players. He convinced him to look at their mannerisms with their teammates. Look at their leadership more. So I’m a believer he’s impacted the roster. The culture well I don’t know if there’s room to chronicle all the comments by players validating that.

But I don’t know where the percentages reside on responsibility for the turnaround as far as talent and culture. We know it’s both and you need both. But a losing teams mindset is not something that is like a light switch just because your talent is better it goes away. This team had confidence that continued to flourish after the bye week and never really stopped.

The Bengals had some luck, good coaching, disciplined team that rarely got caught for penalties and elite play at skill positions.  That's why they went to the Super Bowl.  That KC game which clinched the division title was a great example of all that.  All those KC penalties near the end of regulation sealed the win for the Bengals.  That's luck cuz another official might not call it.  

Chase and Burrow were phenomenal in the playoffs, both are rare talents for their ages.  

All their wins were with 3 pts or less during Jan and Feb, same for their lone loss.  Hairs difference from losing or winning by the Bengals, so not one thing, just a bunch of different ways that football bounced right for the team.

(03-31-2022, 02:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who?

Doesn’t matter. But I’ve known both for over 30 years.

(03-31-2022, 02:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah, and I saw his Rams go 9-7 and miss the playoffs the year after the Super Bowl.

Same exact "culture" but missing Suh, Marcus Peters, Roger Saffold, Aqib Talib, and John Sullivan.

I don’t think you see it. It takes both. Doesn’t mean because Zac is here that the culture is going to be right every year. McVay’s teams after his first Super Bowl were not as talented. Don’t know about the culture. But I heard in McVay’s interviews that this team was more connected. It’s okay you diminish culture as being important in the Bengals turnaround. I’ll take others opinions like the players who constantly brought it up.

Katie Blackburn:

We have spent more time studying free agents before free agency,” Blackburn said from the NFL’s Annual Meetings on Wednesday. “We have invested more time in doing that and I think we are getting better results with some of the things we've been doing. It's like everything. We looked at it. We improved the way we were doing it. The scouts and the role they play and working with the coaches in terms of studying free agents … We've spent a little more time working to find the pieces and the players that will fit our team."

(03-31-2022, 12:00 PM)Soonerpeace Wrote: To have a winning team it takes as we all know lots of ingredients. I’m going to just center on 2. The Jets added C J Uzomah and maybe their culture will be much better. But you have to have the talent as well. The Rams got Matthew Stafford and Von Miller. FredToast and others who can’t see the forest for the trees.

The Bengals when Taylor took over didn’t have a roster worth a flip. The scouting and personnel department had been in place for years. How’d they done? How did they do drafting? Taylor did bring his experience from Miami and McVay as well as his own. He directed Duke and his staff to bring him college players who were from winning programs. He wanted team captains. He also wanted free agents that were likewise. Those players were evident. Hilton and Hendrickson were hard workers and great teammates. Logan Wilson was an unbelievable leader at Wyoming.

He got rid of the players on the roster who didn’t buy in. If people can’t see the metamorphosis of the winning mindset that Taylor developed then they truly can’t see the forest for the trees. No you can’t do what he did without it producing results. But if you can’t see the make over of this teams culture then you are just biased or stubborn. But to get a team that had lost so many games and a franchise with a history of losing to turn it around like he did is pretty amazing. Like I said I know a NFL HC and OC and that’s what amazes them.

Those thinking that improving the roster is all it takes are lost. This team’s roster was not as elite as most Super Bowl teams and even with the recent OL FA overhaul Vegas seems to agree. Taylor had a great season. Plain and simple.

(03-31-2022, 12:36 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I just think there's miscommunication between the two arguing sides here. Improving the roster is undoubtedly the biggest contribution, which I think is the main point Fred is making. This isn't debatable, to be honest - the team brought in better players, so the team was better. However, ZT did a great job of bringing in high-quality guys. This likely improved team chemistry, morale and all of that fun stuff. 

Being a "leader" doesn't win games if the player isn't good, though. That's the whole point. The college football landscape is littered with high quality teammates who are strong leaders. A lot of them aren't very good, though. Burrow is a great leader, but he is also a fantastic QB. Hilton is a great lockerroom guy, but he is also a good corner. Hendrickson is a great teammate, but he is also a fantastic DE. The same goes for Logan Wilson, and a lot of other players on the team. Good players win games. The lockerroom stuff helps in an unknown capacity, but the biggest change was that Cincinnati became inundated with quality players (aside from OL). 

I don't think Cincinnati's roster is really that much worse than any of the other past Super Bowl teams. There have been better, sure, but the Bengals have a strong roster. Especially going into this season. They had some luck throughout the season, were fortunate with an easier schedule and got hot at the right time. 

Both of these are great posts. Good on both of you. It was a lot of things that had to come together. The players had to be 
good while being leaders/Captains coming from winning teams. In Free Agency we got Reader, Bell, Ogunjobi, Hendrickson,
Hilton, Awuzie, Apple, traded Price for BJ Hill on Defense the last couple of years which got the trenches and the D on track.

While adding quality guys in the Drafts on Defense.

This Offseason we finally went out and and got the trenches on the otherside fortified to compliment our weapons.

It is a process, but at this point I truly believe we can finally be the team to beat cause we have the OL now.

Just have to stay somewhat healthy. Zac, Lou and our coaches also need to continue to get better with a target on their backs.

(03-29-2022, 04:24 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: This is why I am willing to use draft capital to upgrade the roster in our current win now mode. Trade a first, second, first and second, whatever...to get a really good player and upgrade a lacking position on a decent contract.

The draft can be a crap shoot.  But if you build a team the Ram's way, you'll be in cap hell very quickly (have a small Super Bowl window). If you hit on draft picks, you get a great contract for the first 4 years that allows you to spend more on improving the team. If we trade all of our top picks for all pro players, we'll be at the cap very quickly and be out the picks. If we hold onto our draft picks, pick BPA, and spend to the cap in FA, we'll be much better off long term. 

With having Burrow and a great team/locker-room, we are very enticing to FAs. I say we use that to our advantage (as we are doing), and hold onto our draft picks. We still spend to the cap and bring in great players both in FA and the draft.

I'm quite pleased with this FA period. We are in position to take BPA in the draft which is a huge factor in a successful draft.

(03-31-2022, 06:29 PM)Bengalstripes9 Wrote: The draft can be a crap shoot.  But if you build a team the Ram's way, you'll be in cap hell very quickly (have a small Super Bowl window). If you hit on draft picks, you get a great contract for the first 4 years that allows you to spend more on improving the team. If we trade all of our top picks for all pro players, we'll be at the cap very quickly and be out the picks. If we hold onto our draft picks, pick BPA, and spend to the cap in FA, we'll be much better off long term. 

With having Burrow and a great team/locker-room, we are very enticing to FAs. I say we use that to our advantage (as we are doing), and hold onto our draft picks. We still spend to the cap and bring in great players both in FA and the draft.

I'm quite pleased with this FA period. We are in position to take BPA in the draft which is a huge factor in a successful draft.

Completely agree with everything you say here Bengalstripes9.

I think we are going about it the right way rather than the Rams way. They won their SB, congrats. 

I don't think they will be back anytime soon like we will as long as we stay healthy and keep doing things the way we are.

(03-30-2022, 11:00 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Compared to the 2021 team? None of Marvin's teams had that level of talent. Even cumulative by patchworking together all the best parts of past Bengals teams it's probably still better.

Compared to all of Marvin's 16 years here, 2021 had the best QB, best WR group, best RB, best DL (past DLs were good but always had a weak link), best S, and best K.

That's comparing 16 years of opportunities to 1 and the 1 single year still comes out as the best ever in that window in every category other than OL, TE, LB, CB, and P.

Fair enough and true, yet I disagree. 

Heck fans were wanting Zac fired at the 3/4 pole of the season even. Agree though that there was a lot of talent on this squad that could only manage 10 wins in a 17 game season while the entire AFCN was horrible.  

Marvin had 3 teams that equaled that regular season win total, and 3 that surpassed it with 11-5, 11-5, 12-4 records while playing one less game even. They were very talented teams too.

But will say that the 2022 team features way more talent than any of Marvin's teams and I personally really liked last years team much better than those of Marvin's as well.  

Yet that is due to Zac's culture change.